Amendment Text:
H.Amdt.758 — 111th Congress (2009-2010)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:Amendment as Offered (07/29/2010)

This Amendment appears on page H6374 in the following article from the Congressional Record.

[Pages H6368-H6382]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5850.
{time} 1738
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5850) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Snyder in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
amendment No. 11 printed in part A of House Report 111-578 offered by
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) had been
disposed of.
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments printed in House Report 111-578 on which
further proceedings were postponed in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 printed in part A by Mr. Boehner of Ohio.
Amendment No. 8 printed in part A by Mr. Latham of Iowa.
Amendment No. 10 printed in part A by Mr. Culberson of Texas.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Boehner
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on
[[Page H6369]]
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206,
noes 217, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 488]
AYES--206
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Crenshaw
Culberson
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ellsworth
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Himes
Hodes
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maffei
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Owens
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schauer
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOES--217
Ackerman
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bordallo
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Buyer
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--15
Akin
Andrews
Carson (IN)
Griffith
Hoekstra
Lynch
McCarthy (CA)
Moran (KS)
Radanovich
Shadegg
Tiahrt
Wamp
Watson
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this
vote.
{time} 1808
Ms. McCOLLUM, Mr. MELANCON, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. FILNER, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms.
CASTOR of Florida, Mr. BACA, Ms. DeLAURO, Messrs. KANJORSKI, BRADY of
Pennsylvania, DINGELL, ACKERMAN, OBERSTAR, TOWNS, LARSON of
Connecticut, LIPINSKI, CLEAVER, WU, LUJAN, Mrs. HALVORSON, Messrs.
CUELLAR, THOMPSON of Mississippi and CARNEY changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. FOSTER, YOUNG of Alaska, KISSELL, HIMES and SCHAUER changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Latham
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197,
noes 225, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 489]
AYES--197
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Himes
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tanner
[[Page H6370]]
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOES--225
Ackerman
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
Kirk
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--16
Akin
Andrews
Griffith
Gutierrez
Hoekstra
Kilpatrick (MI)
Lynch
McCarthy (CA)
Moran (KS)
Radanovich
Shadegg
Tiahrt
Wamp
Watson
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this
vote.
{time} 1817
Mr. DELAHUNT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Culberson
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169,
noes 252, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 490]
AYES--169
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hodes
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Marshall
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Murphy (NY)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
NOES--252
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (MA)
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--17
Akin
Andrews
Connolly (VA)
Griffith
Gutierrez
Hoekstra
Kilpatrick (MI)
Lynch
McCarthy (CA)
Moran (KS)
Radanovich
Shadegg
Tiahrt
Wamp
Watson
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in the
vote.
{time} 1826
So the amendment was rejected.
[[Page H6371]]
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chair, I was absent from the House and missed rollcall
votes 488, 489, and 490.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall 488,
``yes'' on rollcall 489, and ``yes'' on rollcall 490.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Graves of Missouri
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed in
part A of House Report 111-578.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Department of Transportation or the Federal
Aviation Administration to pursue, adopt, or enforce
guidelines or regulations requiring a sponsor of a general
aviation airport to terminate an existing residential
through-the-fence agreement, or otherwise withhold funds from
a sponsor of a general aviation airport, solely because the
sponsor enters into an agreement that grants a person that
owns residential real property adjacent to the airport access
to the airfield of the airport for noncommercial uses.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
{time} 1830
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Graves-Boswell amendment. I would like to thank the gentleman from Iowa
for offering this amendment with me and for his support.
Our amendment prohibits the FAA from using funds in this act to
terminate an existing residential through-the-fence agreement at
public-use general aviation airports. It also prevents the FAA from
withholding funds from the sponsor of a GA airport, solely because that
sponsor enters into a residential through-the-fence agreement.
To kind of explain this, the sponsor can be the airport authority, it
might be the community, it might be the municipality, it might be the
county in many cases. What a residential through-the-fence agreement is
is an agreement between the airport sponsor and a person who might own
residential property adjacent to that airport. These agreements simply
provide the property owner and their aircraft access to the airport.
It is very important to note that this amendment does not require a
GA airport to enter into one of these residential agreements. If an
airport or that airport authority--city, county, municipality--if they
feel that such an agreement is not beneficial to the airport or they
simply don't like the idea, then they don't have to enter into an
agreement. It's always been that way. It's up to those communities.
Those communities, the municipalities, counties, they own the airport.
The Federal Government doesn't. What this amendment simply does is keep
that option out there on the table.
Most recently the FAA began targeting public-use airports that have
residential through-the-fence agreements. In some cases, the FAA has
withheld annual Airport Improvement Program funds from GA airports
solely because the airport has a residential through-the-fence
agreement. Airport Improvement Program funds are those funds that are
deposited into the general aviation trust fund from taxes on aviation
fuel. That's where it comes from. They go to these airports to make
improvements, to expand airports, whatever the case may be; but the FAA
has withheld those funds simply because an airport has entered into one
of these agreements.
Residential through-the-fence agreements can safely coexist with GA
airports. The FAA's policy banning all of these residential agreements
remains, I think, misguided and unjustified. Rather than work through
these on a case-by-case basis, the FAA finds it more convenient just to
prohibit them altogether.
Our amendment will prohibit the FAA from enforcing this policy just
in fiscal year 2011. What I am trying to do is hopefully give us some
time so we can find a more permanent, long-term solution. This
amendment does not prohibit the FAA from deeming an airport to be out
of compliance. If an airport violates any of the criteria that are out
there, they could still hold them accountable. They simply can't do it
solely because the airport has entered into a residential through-the-
fence agreement.
Again, Mr. Chairman, just to try to put it in basic terms, these
airports belong to the cities and the counties. They don't belong to
the Federal Government, and I think it's wrong that the Federal
Government would withhold funds from them simply because they entered
into one of these agreements. It should be up to the city; it should be
up to the community or whoever the airport authority is and not up to
the Federal Government.
I rise in support of the Graves-Boswell amendment. Again, I want to
thank the gentleman from Iowa for helping out with this. He has been a
strong general aviation advocate for many, many years and obviously
very active in this issue.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OLVER. I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished
chairman of the authorizing committee, the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman from Missouri, a strong advocate of
general aviation, a great member of our committee, has expressed a very
genuine concern and has introduced legislation; a bill that was
introduced in March of this year, referred to our committee. We have
asked for comments from the administration; that is, from DOT and FAA.
Meanwhile, the FAA in January of this year initiated a process to
address the issues created by the so-called ``through-the-fence''
agreements. They formed a policy review team to gather information,
evaluate the concerns, decide what kind of action could be taken to
address the concerns.
And what are these concerns? Well, I know the former president of the
Airport Owners and Pilots Association, Phil Boyer, retired, I think, to
Florida, to a place where he has an airplane literally in his garage.
He can roll it out onto a runway and fly wherever he needs to go.
That's the kind of thing we're talking about here.
Under these agreements, people have total access to runways,
taxiways, sensitive operational parts of the airport. But people and
pets have ventured onto airport property. Homeowners have hunted.
They've thrown parties. They have buried pets on airport grounds. These
are the reports we got from the FAA. These agreements have hamstrung
airports in planning for the future, planning for safety and improving
safety. With airport land encumbered by such agreements, airports may
not be free to make the necessary safety improvements they require.
I would propose to the gentleman that we allow the FAA to continue
its policy review team, bring forth recommendations; I would schedule a
hearing in the Aviation Subcommittee, with the concurrence of the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the chairman of the
subcommittee; and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), schedule a
hearing in committee, and air the issues.
The provisions that the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, has included in the
bill he has introduced are very beneficial suggestions. They don't deal
specifically with the issues that I just cited but those will be the
subject of this review by the FAA. We'll give them a deadline of
reporting to us in mid September, schedule a hearing and fashion a
legislative proposal which we could then bring to the floor on
suspension of the rules pending an agreement. But I think the
gentleman's introduced bill is a much more thoughtful approach to the
issue than just a bludgeoning of the FAA, cutting off and saying they
can't take action.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri has 30 seconds.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I very much appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me on
[[Page H6372]]
this and to move forward. This is going to be a process that is going
to take some time. We need to come up with some thoughtful
consideration.
{time} 1840
What I'm trying to do today with this amendment, though, is just
prevent us from doing some irreparable damage to these airports and to
these agreements in the meantime, just this year. It's just for this
fiscal year, just to slow this process down and to address some of the
FAA's concerns.
Mr. OLVER. I again yield such time as he may consume to the chairman
of the authorizing committee, Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I would just conclude that it's inappropriate for us to
impose this penalty on the FAA through the appropriation process. A
much more appropriate way would be to deal with it through our
committee.
I commit to the gentleman that we will work through to hopefully a
legislative solution. Certainly, the FAA's committed to do that, and I
will talk to the Administrator of the FAA, tell him we expect to hold a
hearing on this issue mid-September, that they will be prepared to
report to us whatever findings they have from the policy review team at
that point.
I am prepared to do that if the gentleman would consider withdrawing
his amendment or at least not pressing it to a recorded vote. If the
gentleman presses to a recorded vote, I'd be constrained to oppose it.
I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I tell you what, I would rather not withdraw the
amendment, but I would take just a voice vote. I would like to say if I
can, I just appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me on
this, and I understand what he's saying, too, and I respect it. But
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding to me.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed in
part A of House Report 111-578.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $250,000)''.
Page 2, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $50,000)''.
Page 2, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $175,000)''.
Page 3, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $100,000)''.
Page 3, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $100,000)''.
Page 9, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $225,000)''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, indeed, this Transportation
appropriations bill is a jobs creations bill, and I am totally in
support of that.
My amendment here would modestly increase funding for the Department
of Transportation's efforts to help small and disadvantaged businesses
obtain transportation contracts. It would add funding beyond the
$14,000 increase requested by the President for the Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization within the Secretary's office, and
to increase the capacity for the department to reach out to small and
disadvantaged businesses.
When I talk about small and disadvantaged businesses, it's not just
ethnic minority businesses. It's veteran-owned businesses. It's women-
owned businesses. This is an issue that affects every district, both
Democrat and Republican.
This amendment is about strengthening these small, but important,
programs and the work that they do and sending a strong signal to small
businesses and to the Secretary about the level of importance that we
as a Congress place on creating opportunities for American businesses
that are deserved.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, though I am not
opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. OLVER. I'm very sensitive to the issues that the gentlewoman has
raised, and I think these are very modest changes and I'm quite willing
to accept the amendment that she has proposed.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 printed in
part A of House Report 111-578.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. _. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby reduced
in the amount of $10,520,000,000.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, earlier this week the House voted 393-
24 to pass legislation that would cancel hundreds of millions of
dollars in old earmarks that have been sitting unused, sometimes some
of those for over 20 years.
The Surface Transportation Earmark Rescission, Savings, and
Accountability Act rescinded $713 million of Federal highway contract
authority for 309 Member-designated projects for the Surface
Transportation Authorization Acts of 1987, 1991, 1998 and 2005.
After passage of this legislation, Members of Congress should be
applauded for supporting these commonsense spending cuts. We said long-
term economic growth and recovery can't happen unless we cut wasteful
government spending and tackle our exploding deficit. We agreed that
these earmarks were a wasteful use of the taxpayers' money.
The number of unused earmarks in these old transportation bills shows
that Congress needs a better process of deciding how to spend the
taxpayers' money. While many on the other side want to continue their
practice of earmarking on their constituents' behalf, I cannot support
this reckless spending. The bill before us today includes over 500 new
earmarks that we cannot simply afford. More importantly, these earmarks
are potentially causing even more government inefficiency.
While I supported the bill on Tuesday, we also need to be honest that
it did not actually reduce any spending. These projects have been on
hold for a long time, and this money was never going to be used and
never was allocated. I agree that Congress should repeal spending that
is not going to be used, but we didn't reduce the deficit $700 million
by taking out these old earmarks, even though we talked like that's
what we were actually doing.
Today, we get to vote on an amendment that actually cuts unspent
funds. My amendment says that we should take the unspent money from the
stimulus package and return it to the taxpayers. Most of us agreed that
we should take unspent money out of the old transportation earmarks in
the vote earlier this week. Most of us should agree then that with this
bill we should take and give back to the American taxpayer the stimulus
money that has not been spent.
My amendment would reduce the FY 2011 spending bill by the same
amount that's yet to be committed from the $61.7 billion included in
the 2009 economic stimulus bill for transportation and housing
programs. According to the Appropriations Committee report, $10.52
billion went to programs that have not been committed to yet, and much
less, the money has not been spent or is not out the door.
[[Page H6373]]
If Americans go to recovery.gov and review the agency reports for the
Department of Transportation or Housing and Urban Development, they
will learn that we're once again double-dipping on the backs of their
children and their grandchildren. Here are just a few examples of
programs receiving more money in today's spending bill that has money
left from the 2009 stimulus bill.
One of those is the bill that is before us today, $2 billion for
capital investment grants. While these grants may provide worthy
investments in the infrastructure, there is still $800 million left
from the stimulus that has not been spent.
Today's bill includes $3.5 billion in grants for airports. However,
there's more than $1 billion left from the stimulus bill.
Grants to the Amtrak system that were slated to receive $563 million
already has almost $1.3 billion ready to go out the door as we so often
hear but actually not spent.
Moving on to housing, we still have $2.2 billion in the Home
Investment Partnership Program to spend from the stimulus, but today,
we're poised to add another $1.8 billion on top of the 2.2 that hasn't
been spent.
{time} 1850
Mr. Chairman, as we learned on Tuesday, we can raise up, rise above
the partisan differences and put a stop to these projects that aren't
working, won't be funded and aren't completed and ready to be taken off
the books. Today we have an opportunity once again this time to vote to
actually reduce spending and the deficit.
I recall the proponents arguing about this stimulus bill and how it's
going to create new jobs for the American people. We were going to
spend nearly a trillion dollars. We were going to create all these
jobs. Unfortunately, unemployment was not going to go above 8 percent.
Today 9.5 percent of the American people are out of work. We have lost
2.7 million jobs since this stimulus bill has passed.
Mr. Chairman, let's give the American people a break here. Let's give
them their money back. This is money we don't have. We don't have a lot
of money that's in this bill. For every dollar we are going to spend we
are going to borrow 43 cents. We are going to charge it to our children
and our grandchildren.
Quite honestly, it is not sustainable. Our national debt is $13
trillion today. We are headed to $20 trillion. We are headed to having
debt almost equal to 90 percent of our total economy.
Mr. Chairman, let's give the American people a break. Let's give them
their $10 billion back. A lot of people say, well, it's just $10
billion; but that's the problem around here. People don't take money
seriously because it's not real money to them because we are charging
it to our children and our grandchildren.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the amendment, both as the
gentleman has described it and also as it is written. As the amendment
is written and in our hands, it is a straight across-the-board
amendment of a couple of billion dollars difference from the one that
was offered by Mr. Culberson earlier and has been defeated by roll call
vote in the last round of roll calls.
As described by the gentleman, he is dealing with monies that are not
yet expended in the Recovery Act.
And those monies in the Recovery Act are ones that are, in the
Recovery Act, those are monies, some of which are under high-speed rail
or TIGER Grants, those monies have not yet been fully obligated, but
they were not expected ever to have expended out in this first couple
of years of the Recovery Act's life.
They were expected to be expended within the next 2 or 3 years at our
given time until the end of fiscal 2012 to be expended. Others are
being expended and really going into jobs right now, day after day
after day. Every day, more of the monies that spend out more rapidly
get used and get counted as having been expended at the end of every
month.
But the amendment that is in our hands is specifically merely a sum
of money taken off the bottom line of the bill on all appropriated
funds, which is all of the discretionary $67 billion, and $10 billion
off $67 billion would be about 16 or so, 15 or 16 percent of that
appropriated money that the bill involved. But it has nothing to do
with monies that are related to the ARRA.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLVER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you.
In the particular category you are talking about, $116 million is
still available. You only spent $6.9 million, yet you are asking for
$1.4 billion. We were told that this money was going to go out the door
real quickly to create jobs for the American people, yet we have a lot
of these categories that still have a substantial amount of money.
We are plussing up with new money when we haven't even spent the
money we had before. And I think this sense of urgency must have gone
away because these projects, the money has not been spent.
Mr. OLVER. Reclaiming my time, but the gentleman is not talking about
the amendment that is before us. He is talking about a different issue,
about money that has not been expended in ARRA funds or money that has
not yet been expended in the 2010. I am not quite sure which it is.
But the amendment that is before us, at least as we have understood
it, as we have it given to us, is an amendment that simply takes from
the bottom line of the bill before us from the discretionary amount a
total of $10.5 billion, and I must oppose that proposal.
In closing, I just want to repeat again that our bill is already $1.3
billion below the President's request that, as I had said earlier
today, and have said at least twice, that we have used the President's
request. We have not funded, in the base bill that is here today,
several items that have never been authorized and really require
authorization that total $4.8 billion.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Neugebauer).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, on that I request a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Braley of Iowa
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed in
part A of House Report 111-578.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 77, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $20,000,000)''.
Page 78, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $20,000,000)''.
Page 98, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Braley) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the
amendment that I have offered to increase funds within the Community
Development Block Grant by $20 million to be used for disaster relief
and recovery in the Midwest by reducing funding for the administration
operations and management and nonpersonnel expenses in the bill.
This past weekend, heavy rains caused major flooding in parts of my
district. Lake Delhi, which you see on this illustration, was a
treasured summer retreat. It's gone. The 9-mile long lake disappeared
after sudden flood waters breached its 92-year-old dam on Saturday
morning. I was standing at the south end of the dam watching this
happen at 1 o'clock in the afternoon.
Over a dozen other communities in my district are also experiencing
major flooding this week.
This $20 million increase to CDBG will be used to help aid flood
relief and recovery in the Midwest. The eligibility requirements for
CDBG clearly
[[Page H6374]]
state that grant funds can be used for particularly urgent community
development needs because existing conditions pose a serious and
immediate threat to the public.
Due to the flooding, parts of my district are currently experiencing
serious and immediate threats to the public. Piles of flood-polluted
garbage are piling up and raising serious public health concerns.
You can see the damage that has been caused as the lake has drained.
The stench of rotting fish permeates the air around Lake Delhi. Many of
the homes are experiencing major flood damage while values are expected
to plummet as the lake has disappeared.
The CDBG funds have been used in the past to aid in disaster relief
and recovery. In 1997, they were used to aid communities in the upper
Midwest affected by severe flooding.
In 2002, emergency CDBG funds were awarded to the State of New York
for assistance for properties and businesses damaged by the terrorist
attacks of 9/11. These emergency funds helped these businesses with
economic revitalization.
{time} 1900
I look forward to working with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, as well as the State of Iowa, to ensure that the CDBG
funds are properly used to aid in flood recovery and relief. I urge
everyone to support flood relief for the Midwest.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment, though I am not opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the chairman.
I certainly rise in support of the amendment. It is a disaster that
happened, and like the gentleman from Iowa said, just to watch that dam
collapse and all the damage that went through afterwards was
devastating to so many folks. And so I think this is a good amendment,
and I'm very proud to support it.
Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for his comments and I agree with
him totally. These kinds of disasters need to be taken care of as soon
as can be possible after they occur.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Braley).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Turner
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed in
part A of House Report 111-578.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 420. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to establish, issue, implement, administer, or
enforce any prohibition or restriction on the establishment
or effectiveness of any occupancy preference for veterans in
supportive housing for the elderly that (1) is provided
assistance by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and (2)(A) is or would be located on property of
the Department of Veterans Affairs, or (B) is subject to an
enhanced use lease with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Turner) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. TURNER. I want to thank the Rules Committee for ruling my
amendment in order and for providing this opportunity to assist low-
income seniors and our Nation's veterans with obtaining safe and
quality housing.
This amendment is a narrowly tailored, pro-veteran amendment which
allows the VA to maintain its requirement of a veteran's preference on
HUD-financed housing on VA campuses. Unfortunately, HUD has rules that
don't allow for a veteran's preference for people who live in
facilities built with HUD funds, even if they are built on VA property.
My amendment simply says that no funds in this bill could go toward
enforcing these rules against a facility that is built on a VA campus
or is utilizing a VA-enhanced use lease.
Mr. OLVER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TURNER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. OLVER. We carried this amendment last year. We accepted this
amendment last year, and I am perfectly happy to accept the amendment
again this year if that is acceptable to the gentleman.
Mr. TURNER. I would greatly appreciate that. It certainly goes to
help our veterans and our low-income seniors.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 printed in
part A of House Report 111-578.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby
reduced by 5 percent.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my
amendment to cut by 5 percent all of the discretionary spending in the
Fiscal Year 2011 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development
Appropriations Act. I offer this amendment because it is imperative
that Washington finally take notice and start acting to combat this
year's record budget deficit and fast-growing national debt, which at
last count amounted to an astounding $13.2 trillion.
Just 2 weeks ago, the cochairs of the nonpartisan Debt and Deficit
Commission, former Republican Senator Alan Simpson and former Chief of
Staff to President Bill Clinton, Erskine Bowles, said that if the
government fails to take action, our debilitating Federal debt will
destroy the country from within. Bowles further described the debt as a
cancer on our Nation.
There are plenty of folks in my district and all across the country
who are finding ways to raise families, run small businesses, and pay
their bills despite having lost their jobs or taking deep pay cuts in
this economic downturn. If the families in my district have been able
to tighten their belts, then surely the Federal Government can do the
same.
Congress should be leading by example when facing tough economic
decisions. My proposed 5 percent congressional pay cut is just one way
Members can show they are serious about tackling the looming fiscal
crisis. That is why I have previously supported budget cuts to Federal
programs and will continue to support such cuts as our economy
recovers, and that is why I am offering this amendment.
I strongly support building our national infrastructure--roads and
bridges, affordable housing, quality education, and expanding
broadband--but our long-term fiscal health depends on Congress making
hard choices today to protect our ability to provide critical
infrastructure tomorrow.
This amendment makes a 5 percent cut to the programs funded in this
bill, but ordinary families are seeing much bigger cuts to their
income. I have to believe that if those families can continue to make
ends meet in these tough times, the Transportation and Housing
Departments can keep the important programs going with 95 cents out of
each dollar.
We are here to represent the folks back home, the folks who
understand that the old ways of Washington no longer work for the
American people. Please join me in supporting this cut.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H6375]]
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment as
presented by the gentlewoman from Arizona.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides a new wrinkle on
what we have been dealing with earlier. Again, this is somewhat
different from what the gentlewoman has expressed, but as written, it
reads, ``Each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by this
act that is not required to be appropriated or otherwise made available
by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 5 percent.'' Now, what that
means is it's not just discretionary expenditure, but it also applies
to the nondiscretionary part of this bill. It is not just on the $67
billion of discretionary expenditure that is part of this underlying
bill, but the whole $126 billion, which covers all of the contractor
authority for all of the small safety agencies that get money out of
the Highway Trust Fund, and also applies to the moneys that go to the
FTA that come out of the transit portion of the Highway Trust Fund. So
that is the way that is written.
There is a provision at the end, the part that I read, ``or otherwise
made available by a provision of law,'' which leaves CBO unable to
score this amendment at all, and they cannot tell us what it really is
meant to do. It says it cannot be implemented in this form.
So I must oppose this amendment for all of those reasons, because it
goes far beyond the discretionary expenditure. That is different. Each
of the earlier large cut amendments have been ones that purported to
take only from the discretionary expenditure, and this one covers all
of what is involved in this legislation, both the discretionary and the
contract authority supported parts of the legislation, plus apparently
some other things.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. OLVER. I will be glad to yield to the gentlewoman.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. Chairman Olver, the intent is to cut
only discretionary spending by 5 percent. I will be happy to work with
you to clarify that language.
Mr. OLVER. Well, we cannot change the language of the amendment at
this point. I would be happy to work with the gentlewoman to find out
exactly what was intended to be done here and try to work with you, but
for the moment, I must oppose this amendment.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. I agree to work with you.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I think enough has been said. It cannot be
amended. It cannot be implemented. It cannot even be scored to know how
much is really involved in it.
{time} 1910
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 printed in
part A of House Report 111-578.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby
reduced in the amount of $18,579,000,000.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Jordan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, who would have thought we would
have witnessed the things we have witnessed in this country over the
last 2 years?
Who would have ever thought the President of the United States would
fire the CEO of General Motors?
Who would have ever thought in this great country we would see the
taxpayers bail out the financial industry and bail out the auto
industry?
Who would have ever thought in this country we would have a pay
czar--a pay czar--telling private American citizens how much money they
can make?
Who would have ever thought in this country we would have a major
policy change, done in a completely partisan fashion, when the health
care bill passed and when the majority of Americans opposed it?
Who would have ever thought, as OMB pointed out this past week, that
we would have a $1.4 trillion deficit--the largest deficit in American
history--and a $13 trillion national debt? On the path we are on
currently, by 2020, we will have a $26 trillion deficit.
Who would have thought those things would take place?
I would argue, although the other side is going to say, ``Oh, this is
terrible. We can't reduce the spending level in this bill to the amount
that the gentleman wants,'' this is a modest first step. This is a
modest initial step towards providing some fiscal sanity to this town
and to this Congress.
My amendment is real simple. It says this bill should go back and we
should spend it at 2008 baseline levels. After all, a lot of families
are living on something less. A lot of families have had to live on
what they were functioning on in 2008. A lot of small businesses are
functioning on what they had to in 2008.
Why in the heck can't the Federal Government do the same thing?
This amendment takes us back to 2008 levels, which was before the
bailouts, before the so-called ``stimulus,'' before the out-of-control
spending. Remember, since 2008, there has been a 38 percent increase in
this bill. So this takes it back to a reasonable level, and I would
argue this is a modest first step that the American people want us to
take.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not a modest one by any
means. It is a double ax taken to the legislation that is involved. It
takes $18 billion out of only the discretionary amount of funding that
is provided in the underlying bill. As such, that is between 20 and 25
percent of the reduction in all of the discretionary accounts from the
underlying bill.
Who would have ever thought that we would have gotten so deep in
deregulation and had our major financial services regulating agencies
so asleep at the switch that we would have ended up in a housing
crisis, a foreclosure crisis, that has been raging to the point where
there are 6 or 8 million foreclosed homes? It almost brought, not only
the American financial system to its knees, but almost the whole
world's financial system to its knees. It ended up with the Secretary
of the Treasury, under the administration of the previous President,
coming to Congress and asking for us--begging us, begging the
Congress--to bail out the biggest banks in this country, the banks
which caused the housing crisis by running a casino on Wall Street.
In that process, by that time, by the time they came to Congress to
ask for that bailout, we were already four quarters into a recession in
this country, a recession that raged throughout the whole of the year
of 2008 and on into at least the first two quarters of 2009.
We have begun to come back out of that recession. We passed a
stimulus bill within 1 month of the new President's being inaugurated,
which, within another month, turned job losses to job gains--or at
least to a reduction of job losses for a series of months. Now, in the
last 6 months or so, there have been job gains. We have been out of the
recession, but it is not a recovery that is happening very quickly.
Whoever would have thought that all of those things would have
happened?
We have a series of economists who pointed out we had to do exactly
those things--first, the bailout of the banks, which most of us in
Congress, I think from both sides, voted for, and there were people on
the other side of the aisle who voted for that legislation. Most of us
expected that there would be some kind of evenhanded handling of the
largest investment banks and also of those who had been bilked out of
their money in the housing crisis and who had gone through
foreclosures,
[[Page H6376]]
but the foreclosure crisis has gone on and gone on and gone on much
farther than it should have been allowed to go.
Whoever would have thought that all of those things would have
happened in America?
We are now coming out of this recession. If an amendment were
implemented, such as the one the gentleman from Ohio has proposed, it
would send us right back into the recession. We cannot do this. Though,
I wonder, as I think I may have asked you earlier, Mr. Chairman: Is
this a deliberate effort to put us back into a double-dip recession
that would be so similar to the Great Depression?
This was exactly what happened in 1937, which was 4 years after the
inauguration of FDR. Four years later, we went back into a recession,
which took another 4 years of experiencing a really very, very bad
economy. We are coming out with the rather prudent actions that have
been taken by Congress and by this administration, and we must continue
on that path.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Just a couple of quick responses to the
chairman's comments.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I voted against the bank bailout, the
TARP bailout. If my memory serves me correctly, the gentleman voted for
that proposal.
Second, the chairman's comments about how this is such a dramatic cut
is a great example of how out of touch this town is with the American
people. All this amendment does is say let's spend what we spent just 2
years ago, in 2008. Go talk to average Americans. They think that's
probably something the Federal Government could do--spend what we were
spending 2 years ago.
Also, remember that this bill is a 38 percent increase over 2008.
That's on top of the transportation spending that was in the stimulus
bill. So it's even bigger than 38 percent, this increase over 2008.
Finally, I would say this: If big government spending, if big
government taxation, if big government regulation were going to get us
out of this economic mess, well, heck, we'd have been out of it a long
time ago because that's all this government has been doing for 2 years.
{time} 1920
Mr. Chairman, I will just close with this. How bad does it have to
get before we can begin to reduce some spending around here? Do we have
to have a $2 trillion deficit? Do we have to get to $30 trillion in
debt? I mean, how bad does it have to get before we can start to do
those things that make sense and that will guarantee a prosperous
future for our kids and our grandkids?
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be postponed.
It is the Chair's understanding that amendment No. 19 will not be
offered.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Flake
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 printed in
part A of House Report 111-578.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer the amendment on behalf of
Congresswoman Bachmann.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 53, line 3, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $1,203,500,000)''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply reduce funding
for capital and debt service grants to the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation for capital investments by $1.2 million.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OLVER. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), who is the chairperson of the
authorizing committee for rail.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I encourage my colleagues to oppose
this terrible amendment.
Rail in America is experiencing a renaissance that we haven't seen in
50 years. All forms of passenger rail, including Amtrak, are seeing
increased ridership numbers. In fact, in 2009 Amtrak welcomed aboard
over 27 million passengers, the second largest annual total in Amtrak
history. An average of more than 74,000 passengers ride more than 300
Amtrak trains per day. And with gridlocked roadways and ever increasing
prices in gas, ridership will only increase.
Amtrak provides a majority of all intercity passenger rail in the
United States, with more States and localities across America turning
to passenger rail to meet the transportation needs of their citizens.
Amtrak reduces congestion and improves our energy independence. One
full passenger train can take 250 to 350 cars off the road. Passenger
rail also consumes less energy than both automobiles and commercial
airlines.
Moreover, Amtrak plays a vital role in emergency preparedness and
recovery during Hurricane Katrina. In fact, Amtrak was the only entity
that could get into New Orleans to evacuate victims and deliver food,
water, and supplies.
Amtrak has made significant improvements in its system over the last
several years, has steadily increased ridership numbers, plays a vital
role in disaster recovery, and has an ambitious agenda for future
growth.
Indeed, it was Congresswoman Bachmann and her Republican colleagues
that put this country in this terrible debt and financial situation
that we're in right now by rubber-stamping the Bush tax cut for the
rich year after year, what I call ``reverse Robin Hood.'' We're robbing
from the poor and working people to give tax breaks to the rich.
I encourage my colleagues to support your constituents, support
Amtrak, and vote ``no'' on this terrible amendment.
I have a letter that I want to submit for the Record from the
chairman of Amtrak, Joe Boardman.
And I just want to give one statement. The lack of capital funds
would deny intercity passenger rail service to 29 million people in
over 500 communities in 46 States.
And remember, folks, if it's Flake, it's ``no.''
National Railroad
Passenger Corporation,
Washington, DC, July 29, 2010.
Hon. Member of Congress,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: I am writing to advise you what the
impact to Amtrak would be if Representative Bachmann's
amendment to eliminate $1.2 billion in capital funding is
adopted during today's floor debate of the FY11
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies bill. If enacted, Amtrak would have no capital
investment program for FY11. The lack of a capital funding
program would deny intercity passenger rail service to 29
million people in over 500 communities in 46 states. Amtrak
is on track to have the highest ridership year ever, carrying
more people, more places than we did two years ago when the
country was experiencing record high gas prices. This
amendment would require us to furlough nearly all of our
20,000 employees who live in nearly every state in the Union.
It would hamper the operation of key commuter rail services
in major metropolitan areas including much of the Northeast,
Chicago, Seattle, and Northern and Southern California, and
we would default on commercial loans which finance most of
our equipment.
Just under two years ago, Congress recognized the
importance of intercity passenger rail and approved a
reauthorization of Amtrak in the Passenger Rail Investment
and Improvement Act. Amtrak's appropriations request for FY11
is in line with this congressionally-approved authorization.
[[Page H6377]]
Investment in Amtrak's capital program creates jobs,
provides energy efficient mobility, and allows us to keep
America's passenger railroad safe and reliable.
Sincerely,
Joe Boardman,
President and Chief Executive Officer.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, I misspoke earlier; I left
off three zeros. This amendment would save $1.2 billion, not $1.2
million. It's easy to mess that up these days, given all the zeros
we're talking about.
The U.S. Department of Transportation calculates that the average
Amtrak passenger receives a $210 Federal subsidy for their ticket.
Larger subsidies obviously go to underperforming routes and those
traveling in first class or sleeper cars. In fact, the Federal
Government says that it could actually save money by buying a plane
ticket for every passenger on some of the worst performing routes, like
that from Orlando to L.A., for example. This has been going on for a
long, long time, and we're always told that Amtrak will be self-
sufficient just around the corner, or that something else will happen;
and it simply never does. It's kind of the transportation version of
corn ethanol subsidies. So, I don't want to anger another group here.
But anyway, it just seems to never, never end; and we keep
subsidizing on and on. It might be one thing if we were running a big
surplus to do this. We're not: 42 or 41 cents on every dollar we spend
this year will be borrowed from future generations, from the Chinese,
from other bond holders. When we're spending, when we're borrowing 42
cents on every dollar, I think it behooves us to look for areas where
we can save; and this is a modest area here, to cut some, just a small
portion, of the subsidy that we currently provide.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to express that this amendment
for a program which is totally authorized, and we are not running above
the authorization number on Amtrak by any means at all, but this is a
killer amendment for Amtrak to remove all of their capital funds, as
this amendment purports to do. So I oppose the amendment, and urge a
``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. This amendment eliminates all of Amtrak's capital and debt
service grants but the $132 million that Amtrak receives from state and
local agencies for capital improvements.
This amendment is nothing more than a re-hash of the Bush
Administration's numerous yet unsuccessful attempts to force Amtrak
into bankruptcy.
Let's be clear: This is a shut-down amendment. A shut-down of Amtrak
will strand millions of rail passengers, disrupt commuter operations,
add to our already congested roads and airports, eliminate well over
20,000 jobs nationwide, and jeopardize local economies and businesses
that depend on Amtrak's service.
The gentle lady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) must know that without
capital funding provided by the federal government, Amtrak won't be
able to maintain its own rail network. Amtrak is then left with two
choices: shut-down or jeopardize the safety of millions of Amtrak
riders, passengers on the commuter railroads that operate along the
Northeast Corridor, and the crewmembers of at least two freight
railroads--Norfolk Southern and CSX, which rely upon Amtrak's
infrastructure and dispatching services in the Corridor.
Amtrak won't be able to replace any ties; fix any track, tunnels, or
bridges; make station improvements; overhaul equipment; or invest in
much-needed safety and security improvements. Further, the railroad
won't be able to make any of the capital improvements necessary to make
the 481 Amtrak-served stations, platforms, parking facilities, and
other structures accessible to persons with disabilities, as required
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Funding for Amtrak's fleet plan would be decimated. The fleet, both
locomotives and railcars, are the only means for Amtrak to provide
service. If Amtrak's fleet can't be maintained, then Amtrak can't
provide service--certainly not safe and reliable service.
Right now, the average age of Amtrak's passenger car fleet is 25. The
mainstay of the Amtrak fleet are 412 ``Amfleet I'' passenger cars
commonly used on the Northeast Corridor; these cars were built between
1974 and 1977 and are presently beyond their assumed 30-year commercial
life cycle. Amtrak's Heritage Equipment railcars were built as far back
as 1948. Baggage cars, used on long distance trains, were built between
1950 and 1961. Dining cars, also used on long distance trains, were
built between 1948 and 1958. The locomotive fleet fares no better.
Amtrak's locomotives average 21 years of age. Based on the 20-year
commercial life cycle of a locomotive, replacement locomotives are
already overdue.
Amtrak plans to overhaul its fleet and purchase new equipment over
the next several years. Amtrak is already in discussions with General
Electric to purchase new locomotives, and with other companies to
purchase new rail cars and parts for maintenance for the existing
fleet, which in turn will provide hundreds if not thousands of jobs for
an entire industry (railway suppliers) that is rapidly declining in
America. But without capital funding, that won't happen.
No funding for capital means no jobs.
According to the Association of American Railroads, if Amtrak
shutdown, the freight rail industry would lose an estimated $5.3
billion over the next six years at a time when the freight railroads
are just starting to recover from the economic crisis and bring people
back to work.
I urge Members to oppose this amendment.
Mr. OLVER. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendments printed in part B of House
Report 111-578.
Part B Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 2, Part
B.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds provided in this Act under the
heading ``Federal Highway Administration--Federal-Aid
Highways (Limitation on Obligations)'' shall be available for
the Blackstone River Bikeway project in Rhode Island, and the
aggregate amount otherwise provided under such heading is
hereby reduced by $1,000,000.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. This amendment would prohibit $1 million from going to the
Rhode Island Department of Transportation for the Blackstone River
Bikeway, and it would reduce the overall cost of the bill by a
commensurate amount.
This particular earmark would fund a project to construct a 3\1/2\
mile route or portion of a bikeway in North Smithfield, and Woonsocket,
including the construction of sections that would connect a public
library, a planned middle school complex, and several bridges.
Here we have a project that is described as a cyclist's paradise of
mill villages and farming communities in Massachusetts and Rhode
Island. According to the Web site of the project, the bikeway is being
developed thanks largely to Federal transportation funding, and it's an
effort among Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management to
Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and on and on,
some other entities as well.
{time} 1930
Well, certainly Federal transportation funding is right. There is a
lot of it going here. And a lot of earmarks have gone this way as well.
Over the past several years, this project has received several
earmarks. In fact, Citizens Against Government Waste has in their waste
Pig Book this project has received five earmarks in transportation
appropriations bills worth nearly $7 million since 2002, including,
last year, same project received a $475,000 earmark; in 2005, a
$500,000 earmark; 2004, a $1.5 million earmark; 2003, a $3 million
earmark; 2002, a $1.5 million earmark. Why are we doing this?
Here we are, as we just mentioned, running a deficit of about $1.4
trillion this year. We have a national debt north of $13 trillion.
Forty-two cents of every dollar we spend this year will be borrowed.
Yet we can't wean ourselves off these kind of earmarks.
[[Page H6378]]
Bike paths. I love biking. I will go home this weekend and bike. But
why in the world should the taxpayers at the Federal level be on the
hook for an earmark for a bike path in Rhode Island? Why did we just
choose this one? That's part of the problem of this system of
earmarking that we have.
I look at this chart. The contemporary practice of earmarking is very
much a spoils system. And if we look at the bill that we are
considering right now, THUD, this is actually one of the least
egregious offenders. If you look at the red area, that's the percentage
of earmark dollars that are claimed by members of the Appropriations
Committee or members of leadership or chairmen of committees. They
represent about 13 percent of this body, yet they claim, look at this,
look at the red, some bills, in the ag appropriations bill 76 percent
of all earmarks will go to these 13 percent of powerful members. In
this bill, 42 percent.
That's the problem. How do we choose this bike path as opposed to one
in Utah or one in Alaska or somewhere else? It's a spoils system that
has to stop. And if we can't stop it this year, when we're running a
deficit of $1.4 trillion, when will we stop it?
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OLVER. I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, to hear the gentleman talk, you would think
that this bill is being gobbled up by a huge number of earmarks,
causing the deficit to explode. The gentleman used a chart. I've got a
chart too. This bar represents the total spending in this bill, $67
billion. This bar represents the portion of that bill represented by
earmarks. Mr. Chairman, I have a tough time finding it. Oh, yeah, with
this magnifying glass I can almost see the bar that represents the
earmarks. Less than one-half of 1 percent of this bill are represented
by earmarks.
And you know what? The last time I looked, the Constitution gave the
Congress the power of the purse. No Congress has ever changed any
President's budget by more than 3 percent in all the time I have been
here. And that 3 percent difference is the difference between having a
President and having a king. And whether the President is Republican or
Democratic, I want a President. I don't want a king.
So all I would suggest to the gentleman from Arizona is that he keep
this in perspective. Keep it in perspective. Or as my old friend Archie
the cockroach said once long ago, ``Perspective is everything. Of what
use is it for a queen bee to fall in love with a bull?''
Mr. FLAKE. I don't think we want to talk about bull. I don't know how
it is in Wisconsin, but in Arizona, to have a bill that has more than
400 earmarks worth more than $300 million is not an insignificant sum.
Now, you can have a chart that takes the overall amount that the bill
spends and then make $300 million look pretty small. But only in
Washington will people say, yeah, that looks pretty small. Anywhere
else in the country they're going to say that's a pretty big amount.
And everybody knows how the game works here. Earmarks are, as has been
said by many, the gateway drug to spending addiction. Once you start
getting earmarks, you start approving bloated appropriations bills
worth $67 billion. And if you didn't have your earmark in there, you
wouldn't be likely to keep increasing the amounts that we spend every
year.
Now, some may point out, hey, we are down this year from last year,
but we were up 28 percent last year from the year before. That is what
has got us into this problem where we have a deficit of $1.4 trillion
and we are borrowing 42 cents on every dollar, and then we dismiss $300
million as insignificant.
I mean you can use a magnifying glass and try to make it sound like
it's small, but it's $300 million. And people across the country are
saying if we don't start here, where do we start? If we can't do this,
will we ever reform the entitlement programs we have to reform?
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
(Mr. KENNEDY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks).
Mr. KENNEDY. It seems like my colleagues, as the saying goes, know
the cost of everything but the value of nothing. I think the gentleman
is exactly right, entitlements. That's where the money is. We all know
it. And yet my colleagues have not seen fit to increase research,
biomedical research that could show enormous offsets in the cost of
care for people with Alzheimer's, autism, Parkinson's, epilepsy. But
that's just the costs. Think about the difference in people's lives
that research in helping people live more functional lives, the cost in
their quality of life that could make.
But are they talking about savings in those respects? No, they're
just talking about dollars and cents that seem to fit on a piece of
paper, but not in a difference in people's lives. Here they're talking
about a couple million dollars on a bike path. They say that that is
something we shouldn't care about. I'm the Congressman from that
district. I know what dollars come back home. I know the value of this
bike path. It helps get people to enjoy the quality of their life.
In case people don't understand, there is a public health epidemic.
It's called diabetes. It's called lack of exercise. I think we actually
ought to be encouraging people to be outdoors. It is a public health
issue. We will be paying for this public health problem if people don't
exercise. But this gentleman seems to dismiss the cost of a bike path.
The point is that once again, cost of everything, value of nothing.
So we'll hear a bunch of these amendments come on down the pike. I
just ask people to keep in mind this is coming up on the silly season,
election time. People will sound like they care a lot about your bottom
line. But the real issue is, do they really care about the other kinds
of deficits? The deficits in education.
You can only make first grade once in your life, second grade once,
third grade once. And if your kid's in the classroom with 35 kids that
year because we decide to save money, guess what? Too bad for your kid.
They have no dress rehearsal in their life. No dress rehearsal. So if
we decide to save money this year, too bad for that kid because we all
of a sudden got serious about our deficit.
Forget their deficit that they're going to live with for the rest of
their life in terms of human potential because that wasn't on their
balance sheet, ladies and gentlemen. That GNP never factored into their
timetable, into their value system. That's not the GNP they were
looking at. So let's start changing the way we value what our economy
is and what it is that we value when we're looking at dollars and
common sense.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.
{time} 1940
Part B Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated
as No. 4, part B.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds provided in this Act under the
heading ``Federal Highway Administration--Federal-Aid
Highways (Limitation on Obligations)'' shall be available for
the Downtown Tacoma Streetscapes Improvement Project in
Washington, and the aggregate amount otherwise provided under
such heading is hereby reduced by $1,000,000.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Before I start on this amendment, let me address what was
just said here.
[[Page H6379]]
We're told by challenging these earmarks, $300 million in this bill,
that we, those who want to save some money here, know the cost of
everything and the value of nothing. I think we better translate that
into Chinese. And the next time we try to auction our bonds and we have
no takers and the Chinese won't buy this paper, say, ``Hey, you know
the cost of everything but the value of nothing.'' See where that gets
us.
It does matter what kind of deficits we run and what kind of debt we
have. It matters. It matters a lot. We may say that it doesn't around
here or that we'll get serious about it later or that we can fund all
of the bike paths we want this year or streetscapes or whatever we're
doing because we'll get serious about it next year, but we never seem
to do it.
I've been doing this for several years now, and I hear that all the
time. ``Yeah, we'll get to it later. This year we've got to do this,''
and we never seem to get to it.
So I would just challenge the cost of everything, the value of
nothing, those sayings. Yeah, they're nice to hear, but when you're
running a deficit of $1.4 trillion, I think there's a little too much
cost there, and I think people across the country would agree.
This amendment would prohibit a million dollars going to the downtown
Tacoma streetscape improvements in Tacoma, Washington, and reduce
spending in the bill by a commensurate amount. According to the
sponsor's Web site, the recipient will be the City of Tacoma, and the
funding would be used toward streetscape improvements along Pacific
Avenue in downtown Tacoma.
The City of Tacoma, I believe, has received a similar earmark in 2010
for $800,000 to develop complete streets, including new bike paths,
widening sidewalks, installing medians, street trees, and other
amenities.
When do we stop here? Why do we choose this one and say the City of
Tacoma deserves another earmark, this time to use for streetscapes.
There are a lot of cities around the country that need streetscapes, a
lot of them that are probably deserving. But why in the world did we
choose this one?
Again, it goes back to the spoils system I talked about. Powerful
Members on certain committees get the spoils, a huge, disproportionate
percentage of it.
So you can talk all high and mighty about how Members know their
districts better than those faceless bureaucrats, but apparently,
unless you're a chairman of an important committee or you're on the
right committee or you're in leadership, you don't know your district
very well. So it's a spoils system that shouldn't be done. We ought to
be saving money where we can.
And let me just remind Members here that people across the country,
it's all well and good to say we couldn't take 1 percent or one-half of
1 percent from that bill because that's indiscriminate; it would cut
out all programs. Here, we're talking about one specific project. And
you're going to have to justify voting against amendments to remove
funding for a streetscape in Tacoma, Washington, that was picked for
who knows why.
So I would just caution those who want to support this kind of
earmarking that people across the country are fed up with it, and they
know when Members vote specifically on amendments to strike funding for
these projects that they would rather fund a project like this than
actually help pay down the deficit we have.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
this amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Today I rise in opposition to the amendment from the
gentleman from Arizona. The Downtown Tacoma Streetscapes Improvement
Project is a vital economic recovery tool for the City of Tacoma.
The Tacoma area has an unemployment rate of 9 percent. In addition,
the largest downtown employer has recently announced their plans to
move. In response, the community came together and created a
revitalization plan to redevelop the downtown corridor.
The overall plan is estimated to create 500 new jobs and help
transform the local economy. This plan has strong local support through
partnerships with the Tacoma-Pierce County Economic Development Board,
the Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber of Commerce, the Executive Council for
a Greater Tacoma, and the State of Washington. The local business
community and other stakeholders have come out in favor of the project.
The city is doing their part by investing approximately $35 million
in local funds to implement the downtown revitalization plan. Federal
investments serve as an important catalyst to allow the leveraging of
public and private dollars.
This specific funding will be used to develop complete streets, which
will involve transitioning existing right-of-ways for multimobile use,
including new bike paths, widening sidewalks, and installing medians
along the city's main downtown corridor.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important economic development project in my
district, and I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and ask that
the Members vote against it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Again, this bill has 461 earmarks, $328 million in those
earmarks. I wish we could challenge them all. We can't. We've only been
allowed the opportunity to challenge four of them. So we will have a
rollcall vote on four amendments to strike these earmarks. So Members
will have to go from this body back to their districts this next month
and say why they voted against an amendment to strike an earmark for
downtown beautification in one city that was just picked by the
Appropriations Committee and why in the world it's better to borrow 42
cents of every dollar we're spending here from our kids and our
grandkids and our foreign debtors, why that is a good plan for economic
development, why it wouldn't be better to actually pay down the debt to
lessen this deficit a bit. That's what this is about.
So don't think we can hide behind, well, these were indiscriminate
cuts. This is a specific cut to cut a certain earmark from the bill, in
this case, that would cut a million dollars. It's not insignificant not
to anyone outside of the Beltway. This is a specific amendment to
strike a million dollars in spending for a streetscape for
beautification in a certain city.
I think we ought to beautify the appropriations process a little bit
by actually having fewer earmarks and saving a little money.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.
Part B Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated
as No. 10, part B.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds provided in this Act under the
heading ``Department of Housing and Urban Development--
Community Planning and Development--Community Development
Fund'' shall be available for the Restoration and
Improvements to the Historic Darwin Martin House Home and
Complex project of the Martin House Restoration Corporation,
New York, and the aggregate amount otherwise provided under
such heading (and the portion of such amount specified for
the Economic Development Initiative in the second paragraph
under such heading) are each hereby reduced by $1,000,000.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. This amendment would prohibit $1 million from being used
for a restoration and improvement project
[[Page H6380]]
at the historic Darwin D. Martin House and complex and would reduce the
overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount.
According to the sponsors of the Web site, the entity that would
receive the earmark is called the Martin House Restoration Corporation,
whose purpose is to restore a structure designed by Frank Lloyd Wright
at the turn of the 19th century. The MHRC's Web site says that it was
formed in 1992 with a clear mandate. First part of this mandate: Raise
the money to restore the complex to its 1907 grandeur.
There are a lot of historic buildings around the country, a lot of
them, that need a lot of restoration. My own home needs a lot of it. A
lot of people are losing their homes. Those homes need a lot of
restoration. A lot of them are losing them because of the Federal
Government's spending ways.
{time} 1950
Yet here we are designating one project to receive a million dollars.
Again, let me say it one more time. This is not as if every Member
comes here and is designated a million dollars to take home and spend
in their district on restoring homes. They aren't. The spoils system
runs well here. If you're on the Appropriations Committee or you're in
leadership, you get the spoils. That's why 42 percent of the earmarked
dollars in this bill are going to just 13 percent of the Members of
this body. In that sense, you can't justify it nor can you justify
spending a million dollars in this way when we're borrowing 42 cents of
every dollar that we'll spend this year.
We have a deficit of $1.47 trillion. We have a debt of $13.2
trillion. How in the world can we continue to do this, to earmark money
for projects like this, when we have that kind of deficit and we have
that kind of debt?
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OLVER. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the way I see it, we're watching a let's
pretend attack on the deficit tonight by singling out these items that
cost about a million bucks.
If Members are concerned about the deficit, I would ask, why did they
vote for two tax cuts, primarily aimed at rich people, that spent more
than $2 trillion? Why are they continuing to insist that we provide
further tax cuts for people who make over $250,000 a year, again paid
for with borrowed money? Why did they vote to go into two wars on
borrowed money that cost over a trillion dollars? That's where the real
money is.
Mr. OLVER. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester,
New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.
Mr. Chairman, Buffalo, New York, is the third poorest city in the
United States. No one in their right mind would ever accuse Buffalo of
getting spoils. This complex is a very important economic development
tool for us. This amendment would strike an important lifeline to a
place of cultural and economic significance in a struggling region that
has been hit hard by the recession.
This house was completed in 1905. I won't go into all that. I simply
want to say that Mr. Martin was the patron of Frank Lloyd Wright. He
kept him going in good times and bad. Mr. Wright did his best work on
this complex. It has been allowed to degenerate over the years because
of a lack of money. The community has raised almost all the money to
restore this by themselves.
Now, let me tell you, Mr. Flake, we estimate that when this is
finished, consultants tell us that 42,000 to 83,000 visitors a year
would come to see that house. It would generate $17 million in economic
impact annually. For this million dollars, Mr. Flake, you probably
would not get a better return on your money, and additionally the tax
return would be significant.
Of this $17 million, $8.34 million will be the earnings and wages of
198 workers who would otherwise be jobless. This is not the time to be
striking those jobs from these persons.
One of the reasons that we are anxious to get it finished is that in
October 2011, there will be a national conference convening in Buffalo
with Martin House at its center bringing in more than 2,000 people. It
is our aim to try to make this magnificent structure and we invite you
to come up. I know you would love it. We want to have it finished.
We believe that this will be a significant destination for everybody
in America who loves the finest architect that America ever produced--
Frank Lloyd Wright.
And, Mr. Flake, I do appreciate you. As you remember, it was my
committee that put this in order. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Flake
Amendment eliminating funding for restoration of the historic Darwin
Martin House and complex in Buffalo, New York.
This amendment would strike an important lifeline to a place of
cultural and economic significance in an already struggling region hit
hard by the recession.
The Darwin Martin House and complex was completed in 1905 in the
historic Parkside neighborhood of Buffalo and is a testament to the
genius of famed American architect Frank Lloyd Wright.
The Buffalo community has rallied behind this historic landmark,
spearheading an ambitious effort to complete its full restoration after
years of neglect and disrepair, turning into source of jobs and tourism
revenue.
Consultants predict visitation levels at 42,000 to 83,000 visitors
per year, which would generate $17 million in economic impact for the
region annually.
Of this $17 million, $8.34 million will be the earnings and wages of
198 workers who would otherwise be jobless.
I hardly think now is the time to be striking jobs from hard working
folks, during a period of economic hardship we have not seen since the
Great Depression.
Additionally, The National Trust for Historic Preservation will be
convening its October 2011 national conference in Buffalo, a city of
architectural masterpieces, including Frank Lloyd Wright's Martin House
Complex, a lynchpin of the region's architectural and cultural tourism
sectors.
Over 2,000 practitioners and opinion makers from the fields of
historic preservation, architecture and design will be coming to see
the Martin House.
Richard Moe, former president of the National Trust, called the
Martin House, ``the most ambitious and well executed restoration effort
in his 15 years at the helm of the Trust.''
He went further to say he believed the Martin House holds the promise
of becoming ``the signature Frank Lloyd Wright site in America.''
This is a national success story that will bring millions of visitors
to the Buffalo Niagara region and will be an anchor for the burgeoning
cultural tourism industry.
New York State will have ``book-end'' Wright sites with the
Guggenheim Museum in NYC and the Martin House to the west, in the
shadow of Niagara Falls and all its international tourism appeal.
Please join us in opposition to this amendment.
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their comments to the Chair
and not to others in the second person.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve.
Mr. OLVER. I now yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from
Buffalo, New York (Mr. Higgins).
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Flake
amendment. The best way to reduce deficits is to create jobs.
The Darwin Martin House in Buffalo is one of Frank Lloyd Wright's
singular architectural masterpieces and is currently undergoing an
ambitious project to restore it from a period of neglect to its
original grandeur.
The reason for its inclusion in the bill before us today is because
restoration of the Martin House is important to the economic future of
Buffalo and western New York. The Martin House currently attracts
tourists from all over the world. This investment will help create 200
jobs and $18 million in annual economic activity for a million-dollar
investment.
Urban areas like Buffalo are leveraging our vast historical and
architectural resources to create a new economy in cultural tourism.
This project will play an important role in enhancing the economy and
life quality of western New York.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge my
colleagues
[[Page H6381]]
on both sides of the aisle to support western New York and join me in
opposition.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I do thank the gentlelady on the Rules Committee for making this
amendment in order, at least a few of mine. I do appreciate that. But I
am just baffled that the other side would continue to talk about--let's
gain perspective here--we're just talking about a little money, and to
basically belittle any attempt to save a million here or a million
there. I just think that says we're out of touch completely with what
the country is going through, to say, hey, we've got a $1.4 trillion
deficit this year, we've got a $13.2 trillion debt that we're going to
need to pay off, our kids and grandkids will be doing this forever, but
we say, ``Well, we can't start here because it's just too big. We
really need to tackle those entitlements.'' Although I don't see a plan
of anybody here on this side of the aisle who has presented this bill
to actually tackle the entitlement programs. Some of us have presented
something. This road map that the gentleman from Wisconsin, the
colleague of the gentleman who spoke before, has introduced is a great
plan to actually address entitlement spending as well.
But we're here today to vote on four specific amendments to save
specific money from specific projects; and that's what you'll have to
go and answer to specific constituents about: whether you voted yes or
no on amendments to strike a million dollars that could be saved from a
project like this one, from an earmark like this one. I would venture
to guess that your constituents and my constituents would want you to
do that. And it will be tough to explain by saying, ``This is just a
little part of the budget. We can't save here. We're not addressing
entitlement spending, so we're not going to address discretionary
spending, either.''
I would urge support of the amendment. And, remember, people are
watching here. They're watching what we're doing. When you go home,
you'll need to explain, if you vote against this amendment, why you
didn't want to save the taxpayer a million dollars when we have a
deficit of $1.4 trillion and a debt of $13.2 trillion.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.
Part B Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated
as No. 11 in part B made in order under the rule.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds provided in this Act under the
heading ``Department of Housing and Urban Development--
Community Planning and Development--Community Development
Fund'' shall be available for the Construction of a
Children's Playground project of the Municipality of Yauco,
Puerto Rico, and the aggregate amount otherwise provided
under such heading (and the portion of such amount specified
for the Economic Development Initiative in the second
paragraph under such heading) are each hereby reduced by
$150,000.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1569, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes,
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair.
This amendment would prohibit $150,000 from being spent on the
construction of a child's playground. Now I am the father of five
children. I understand the importance of having a place for kids to
play. Believe me, kids need to let loose and expend some energy
somewhere. But Federal spending has been let loose, far too loose, so
loose that we have this year a $1.4 trillion deficit. We are borrowing
42 cents on every dollar that we spend.
{time} 2000
When we are doing this, we can't just all of a sudden say we are
going to build playgrounds anywhere as a model for economic development
or anything else. We can't continue to spend money this way. This is
one of the smaller earmarks. We have to start somewhere.
I would urge those of you who want to oppose this amendment to go
home to your constituents and say, I wanted to put you $150,000 more in
debt because I thought it was important that we spend money; the
Federal Government, mind you. Municipal governments, State governments,
if they want to spend money on playgrounds that's great. But why is the
Federal Government doing it here?
Why are we doing it when in May of 2010 the national debt hit $13
trillion. It's now 13.2. According to The Washington Post, that works
out to be more than $40,000 in debt for every U.S. resident; $40,000 of
debt for every U.S. resident.
Then we are saying, ``Well, this is just small. We can't save this
money; we can't go at the deficit this way. We have to deal with those
entitlement programs.'' We certainly do, but we need to start
somewhere. This is a great place to start.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. I claim time in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to Mr.
Pierluisi from Puerto Rico.
Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I requested $150,000
to purchase equipment for a community and recreational park for low-
income children in Yauco, Puerto Rico, a city in the southwestern part
of the island. The park will be constructed so that it is compliant
with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
This funding will supplement funding already provided for the project
by the city of Yauco. This is one of the smallest earmarks in this
bill. It is unquestionably an appropriate and viable use of Federal
funds.
There currently is no recreational park in Yauco, which is home to
approximately 50,000 residents, has a poverty rate of 56 percent and
has an unemployment rate of over 17 percent. Furthermore, although
there are over 75,000 children in Puerto Rico, I am advised that there
is not a single recreational park in the entire southwestern region of
Puerto Rico that is ADA compliant and thus meaningfully accessible to
children with disabilities.
Earlier this week, Mr. Chairman, this House proudly commemorated the
20th anniversary of the ADA's passage. What better way is there to
promote the goals of this landmark Federal law than to provide a
reasonable amount of funding to help equip a recreational park that
children with disabilities can enjoy side by side with their able-
bodied friends.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development states that a core
part of its mission is to build inclusive and sustainable communities
free from discrimination, and HUD's EDI program regularly funds
acquisition of equipment for public facilities like the recreational
park in Yauco.
In closing, I would gently remind my friend from Arizona that a State
with Puerto Rico's population would benefit from congressionally
directed spending requests from six Representatives and two Senators.
However, because Puerto Rico is a territory, I alone am responsible for
protecting the interests of 4 million American citizens.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Again, you have got to have a Federal nexus somewhere. If
you are spending taxpayers' money, it helps to say why in the world
should the Federal Government be involved at all. I would submit that
if you argue that the Federal Government should be paying for
playgrounds around the country, where does it stop?
Where is there no Federal nexus? What is the Federal Government not
responsible for? How in the world
[[Page H6382]]
would our deficit stay at $1.47 trillion this year if we say the
Federal Government is in charge of all playground-building around the
country?
I would remind my colleagues, when we vote on these amendments, these
are specific amendments to save specific money on specific earmarks.
And you can't get by with saying, well, that was indiscriminate cuts
and it would have affected this program or that. We are talking about
here on these four amendments saving money on street beautification.
Where is the Federal nexus there?
On a bike path in Rhode Island, where is the Federal nexus? Why is
the Federal Government doing that when we have a deficit of $1.47
trillion and a debt of $13.2 trillion? Why in the world, when every
citizen of this country is in debt more than $40,000, why in the world
are we saying we are going to pile more on you simply because we can't
control ourselves here?
I would urge you again, you are going to have to go home and not say,
well, I voted against an amendment that would have cut that program
indiscriminately. This is specific amendments for specific programs,
specific earmarks that the country knows the Federal Government should
not be doing or that the Congress should not be directing money toward.
With that, I urge adoption of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. I yield the gentleman from Puerto Rico 1 additional
minute.
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. Let me just say that
there are 435 Members of this House; there are five Delegates
representing the territories. Each and every one of these districts and
the territories has its own peculiar needs, and the Members should be
entitled to do something like what I am trying to do, help a town in
Puerto Rico with the highest poverty rate in the region where kids do
not even have a place to play, particularly meeting the needs and the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
There cannot be a more justified earmark than this one. The amount at
stake is $150,000.
So I urge my friend from Arizona to withdraw this amendment because,
clearly, it has no merit.
I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. OLVER. May I inquire how much time remains.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ minutes, and
the time of the gentleman from Arizona has expired.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in this conversation.
The gentleman from Arizona, who is usually so rational about this whole
effort that he puts forward, he is going to earn a reputation as a
grinch for trying to take the one Member representing 4 million people
in Puerto Rico, taking a program that would provide ADA compliance in a
very small park in a community that's done for children and teens, and
he wants to deny the representative for those 4 million people the
opportunity to have a very small earmark.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Schrader) having assumed the chair, Mr. Snyder, Chair of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5850) making
appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and
Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________